View Full Version : Australia shows its true blue colours
Australia shows its true motives
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=273272
PM says no to more troops for Darfur
Friday Jun 15 09:19 AEST
Prime Minister John Howard says he will not send troops to the troubled Darfur region of Sudan because Australia already has heavy military commitments in other parts of the world.
The United Nations has reportedly asked Australia to contribute military personnel to an international operation to help quell fighting that has killed more than 200,000 and created 2.5 million refugees in Darfur since 2003.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson rejected the UN request due to the burden of Australia's existing military commitments around the world, The Australian reported.
Mr Howard said the government had not formally discussed the issue but Australia already had heavy military commitments, including the recently announced deployment of an extra 300 troops to Afghanistan.
"We have very heavy commitments in different parts of the world," he told ABC Radio.
"And whilst we haven't formally discussed this matter and made a formal decision, there have been requests I understand made at a military level and there's also reports of requests emanating from the United Nations."
The government would need to pull defence force personnel out of other parts of the world if it decided to take part in a new international force in Darfur, Mr Howard said.
"We do have a limited number of ADF personnel, namely 15 in Darfur," he said.
"It's very fair to say that we are very heavily committed at the present time and in order to meet a commitment, a sizeable commitment in Darfur, we would have to pull forces out of other parts of the world to send them there.
"And we have commitments there; once you make commitments, you have obligations not to arbitrarily terminate them."
it appears we can spare plenty of troops for Afganistan, Timor, and Iraq
but help stop the worst genocide on the planet - nah stuff the starving Africans - they aint got any oil.
Australia has been persuing an increased interventionalist role in SE Asia spending 51 billion on new toys for the boys
Howard shows the governemnts true motivation is not about helping anyone other than ourselves :furious3:
This country makes me sick to my stomach, pfft what do I expect from a nation aspiring to be the whelping lap dog of the USA.
Lets help the people of Timor (oil deal from the Timor sea) and Iraq (potential oil and reconstruction contracts) , UN asks help the Africans - nah cant spare tin of bully beef - sorry
:daisy::daisy:
CountArach
06-15-2007, 03:31
:daisy::daisy:
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Incongruous
06-15-2007, 03:35
Those most eloquent sentence ever, regarding Australian politics.
Papewaio
06-15-2007, 07:55
So the Solomon's and Fiji have oil too do they?
Ignoramus
06-15-2007, 08:02
Why should Australia send troops to Darfur? It isn't exactly a neighbour of ours. I realise in pursuing that argument that there is then no reason to have soldiers in either Irag or Afghanistan too.
Our defence force is only about 30,000 strong, and we're kidding ourselves if think we can just afford to strip our country of troops just to send them overseas.
What is happening in Darfur is horrible, but it is not Australia's responsibility to try and fix up a mess that others have created.
So the Solomon's and Fiji have oil too do they?
Last time I checked Fiji had suffered a military coup and expelled NZ diplomats, and Australias role was minimal if any at all, other than Downer making some blustering noises
Why should Australia send troops to Darfur? It isn't exactly a neighbour of ours. I realise in pursuing that argument that there is then no reason to have soldiers in either Irag or Afghanistan too.
Our defence force is only about 30,000 strong, and we're kidding ourselves if think we can just afford to strip our country of troops just to send them overseas.
What is happening in Darfur is horrible, but it is not Australia's responsibility to try and fix up a mess that others have created.
erm because the UN asked us to, but who cares about the UN anymore ..USA USA
Samurai Waki
06-15-2007, 09:17
It isn't Australia's Job to Volunteer her armed forces for the Liberty and Pursuit of Justice that some people will never have the right too. It is the Duty of all Nations who uphold some semblance of responsibility and integrity throughout the world to contribute in what ways they can for whom needs it the most. I don't care about the Sudan as a country, but dude, if some Kiwi militias started coming into your country and messed up the place and put your family in imminent danger, wouldn't you want someone, anyone to Stop the blood shed.
Ya I know. Its probably a bad analogy. :laugh4:
Australia shows its true motives
it appears we can spare plenty of troops for Afganistan, Timor, and Iraq
but help stop the worst genocide on the planet - nah stuff the starving Africans - they aint got any oil.
Australia has been persuing an increased interventionalist role in SE Asia spending 51 billion on new toys for the boys
Howard shows the governemnts true motivation is not about helping anyone other than ourselves :furious3:
This country makes me sick to my stomach, pfft what do I expect from a nation aspiring to be the whelping lap dog of the USA.
Lets help the people of Timor (oil deal from the Timor sea) and Iraq (potential oil and reconstruction contracts) , UN asks help the Africans - nah cant spare tin of bully beef - sorry
:daisy: :daisy:
you have a problem with this, why?
your PM is committing his resources to what he believes to be the australian national interest. if he wasn't primarily concerned with australias national interest i would sack him as incompetent.
the fact that australia has already committed so many (fighting) troops to world causes is should be a matter of pride, given that australia has a small population/military.
australia has every legitimate right to look to others to fill the gaps that it cannot meet, especially when those 'others' are bigger, richer, and nearer.
CountArach
06-15-2007, 10:38
your PM is committing his resources to what he believes to be the australian national interest. if he wasn't primarily concerned with australias national interest i would sack him as incompetent.
He isn't concerned with our Nation's interest. He is concerned with America's national Interest (Even that is debatable). Yet the Labor Party (Opposition) hasn't had a good Alternate Prime Minister for a long time, until this year. So hopefully when our Prime Ministerial elections rok around this year, he'll be out of here and we'll be out of Iraq.
the fact that australia has already committed so many (fighting) troops to world causes is should be a matter of pride, given that australia has a small population/military.
We are proud of our troops, we aren't proud of the reason we are there.
Despite all my knowledge of Anzacs and so forth the idea of Australian soldiers makes me smile. I automatically think of the Australian stereotype, which doesn't suit soldiering, despite the fact that I know the reality is very different.
:sorry:
Australia can do as it sees fit with its troops. It certainly isn't alone in ignoring Dafur.
erm because the UN asked us to, but who cares about the UN anymore ..USA USA
Now now, we dont have yet another democracy acting as our puppets do we ? :dizzy2:
He isn't concerned with our Nation's interest. He is concerned with America's national Interest (Even that is debatable).
Well at least you concede its debatable, I'm game !
Can you post references to your claim that
He is concerned with America's national Interest ?
Here in the states we dont get many quotes from Howard, but if he had made a statement like this (you know he is acting in the U.S. national intrest) we would hear about it.
Not sure how it fits into austrailians deomcraticlly elected leaders choosing not to send troops to Darfur, but hey if its the U.S. fault (even indirectly) even I underestimated the sheer power of influence we have.
somehow it always manages to be america's fault, *sigh*.
Don Corleone
06-15-2007, 16:00
I wonder if people's reluctance to send troops into conflicts as UN peacekeepers might not have something to do with the rules of engagement the troops are under. Other than catching bullets over there, and writing strongly worded protests, what exactly can UN peacekeepers do?
Devastatin Dave
06-15-2007, 16:19
what exactly can UN peacekeepers do?
Rape, rob, and murder. Thats what they've done so far in Africa. The Darfur situation is bad, really bad. but much like the middle east, the only thing these people do is kill. It might have something to do with a certain religious belief and the fact that this belief seem to have a clause witch everyone has to be of this belief or you die. I can't quite put my fonger on it but I know I get warnings for saying the name...hmmm, oh well, maybe I'll remember the name later on in the thread.
This is a no win situation. You can't trust an African coalition to stabilise the area, the UN can't do it, this US won't do it since it will be viewed by everyone as more "Bushey War", The Europeans don't have the military capability much like the UN. The only thing that can be done is sit back and take note as to wait our future holds when these belief systems take root.
Grey_Fox
06-15-2007, 20:24
How many Australian troops are on peacekeeping missions already, and what quantity are the Australians obliged to send on peacekeeping missions?
Ireland's defense forces contain about 10,000 men, and we only ever have a battalion on UN missions at any one time in order to give the others downtime for training and equipping as well as rest.
PanzerJaeger
06-15-2007, 20:44
Howard shows the governemnts true motivation is not about helping anyone other than ourselves :furious3:
Umm... Isnt that the point of government?
This country makes me sick to my stomach, pfft what do I expect from a nation aspiring to be the whelping lap dog of the USA.
Zingg... anti-american, much?? :wall:
AntiochusIII
06-15-2007, 21:16
I think Yun al-Din's "anti-Americanism" (I don't really think it is, but who cares about a weenie liberal's opinion?) has more to do with Australia having troops in Iraq but not in Darfur than anything like deep-rooted anti-Americanism people are accusing him of.
After all most people considers the Iraq War's legitimacy to be under extreme fire while at the same time the situation at Darfur as a humanitarian crisis. It leads to the question of why Australia is in Iraq (because of the USA's presence) and not Darfur.
It's just like Blair where people are looking at him the wrong way because of Iraq. "Bush's poodle" and all that.
From his post I take it that he views his armed forces as a tool for peace in the world and wants them to be used that way -- an attitude which, while different from the usual view of armed forces (defenders of the national interest), is quite admirable in its own way.
Of course, there can be a plethora of reasons why the Australian government refuses UN's request and I'm not here to shout down Mr. Howard either; after all I know squat about Australian politics.
CountArach
06-15-2007, 23:18
Now now, we dont have yet another democracy acting as our puppets do we ?
You would be surprised just how much of our Government Foreign Policy is dictated by yours.
Can you post references to your claim that
He is concerned with America's national Interest
?
Actions speak louder than words.
We followed you into Afghanistan and Iraq. We would undoubtedly follow you into Iran.
But if you want sources, then I'll find one for you:
From a Conservative Australian Newspaper:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/pms-foreign-faces/2006/02/26/1140888743589.html
The first image - Howard the loyal ally - is closest to the popular image of Howard the deputy sheriff. He was at Crawford to bask in televised presidential gratitude for helping invade Iraq, and to share in that brief, heady "mission accomplished" moment, back when it seemed that invading Iraq had been a good idea.
This is the image of the John Howard who has seemed at times to take Australian strategic policy back to the era before Vietnam, when the key role - maybe the only role - of Australian forces was to help our great and powerful friends in their battles far away. And it is the image of a Howard who seemed to support the radical ambitions of the Bush Doctrine: to use American power to reshape the world. Australia, Howard seemed to be saying, would be there to help, all the way.
This image was accurate, up to a point. But only up to a point. To see the limits of this image, we need to look at the other two. At Crawford, away from the cameras, Howard explained to a reluctant and presumably disappointed Bush that he would not be leaving significant Australian forces in Iraq to help with stabilisation. The reason, he said, was that he had a lot on his plate in his own backyard.
He said he would not leave Troops there for the mopping up operation. We are still there. He has also stated that he would not be withdrawing any troops.
He has also recently announced that he will be sending an additional 300 troops to Afghanistan.
In addition the Labor [Opposition] Party constnatly criticises him of being America's Lap-Dog.
How many Australian troops are on peacekeeping missions already, and what quantity are the Australians obliged to send on peacekeeping missions?
About 600 according to:
http://www.dva.gov.au/commem/commac/studies/anzacsk/res1.htm
That is in addition to us being involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Grey_Fox
06-15-2007, 23:27
If they are already fulfilling their obligations to the UN as well as taking on other tasks, why is it such a bad thing to not overextend their military?
CountArach
06-15-2007, 23:34
I'm not sure, but i don't think we are fulfilling our complete requirements to the UN, because of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tribesman
06-15-2007, 23:47
I wonder if people's reluctance to send troops into conflicts as UN peacekeepers might not have something to do with the rules of engagement the troops are under. Other than catching bullets over there, and writing strongly worded protests, what exactly can UN peacekeepers do?
Thats the thing isn't it , what is anyone going to do , there are just so many groups fighting each othertherewhere the hell do you start . since the fighting is in two countries and involves both countries armies(not to mention Libyas actions) will it require two seperate peacekeeping forces or a regional one .
An absolute nightmare , it looks like the only solution is to let it drag on for 30years until they can negotiate like they did in Suthern sudan , actully it was those negotiations that gave rhe rebels in Darfur the nation of fighting for a settlement wasn't it .
Rape, rob, and murder. Thats what they've done so far in Africa.
Wise words from Dave , its nice that he is on the ball to remind everyone who may have forgotten .
:flowers:
Devastatin Dave
06-16-2007, 03:29
Thanks for the heads up Dave .
Where would we be without you :2thumbsup:
Raped, murdered, and robbed maybe?:laugh4:
I think Yun al-Din's "anti-Americanism" (I don't really think it is, but who cares about a weenie liberal's opinion?) has more to do with Australia having troops in Iraq but not in Darfur than anything like deep-rooted anti-Americanism people are accusing him of.
For the record, I prefer to have conversation that is non combative with people who are located in countries that chose to participate in the same war as mine. While I might throw out anti americanism to freely from time to time, I love my country, as Im sure he loves his, but I try desperately hard not to slam other posters nationalism.
Also, I care what your opinion is if you want to chat, I dont care what your political affiliation is, and I dont consider liberals weenies.
Now to the topic:
After all most people considers the Iraq War's legitimacy to be under extreme fire while at the same time the situation at Darfur as a humanitarian crisis. It leads to the question of why Australia is in Iraq (because of the USA's presence) and not Darfur.
Yes, and considering Australlia is a democracy shouldnt the voters be demanding a pull out from Iraq and redeployment to Darfur then? Let me guess, the police are deployed in the streets now to hold back the protesters making that demand right? (sarcasm intended).
It's just like Blair where people are looking at him the wrong way because of Iraq. "Bush's poodle" and all that.
Thats just it, its a convience to blame Bush for Howards and Blair's choices. They made the decision to send the troops, and said peoples made the decision to elect, and reelect both gentlemen.
The mirror is above the sink to all our aussie friends, your a democracy, and a fine one at that. You made this bed, you lay in it, but dont blame us if the leaders you elected, choose sheets with the american flag on it.
Whats howard in now, his 5th term? :idea2:
From his post I take it that he views his armed forces as a tool for peace in the world and wants them to be used that way -- an attitude which, while different from the usual view of armed forces (defenders of the national interest), is quite admirable in its own way.
It is admirable, I for one would support an Australlian pull out in Iraq and redeployment if thats what they choose, I wouldnt think any less of them.
You would be surprised just how much of our Government Foreign Policy is dictated by yours.
Okay if you say so, but is the U.S. the cause of that? Im not trying to be a smart ass, I seriously dont recall any arm twisting or leverage we used to get Australlia into Afghanistan or Iraq.
The way Australlia is portrayed here in the states, Howard wanted to be more aligned with the U.S./Britian and take on a bigger role on a world stage.
Actions speak louder than words.
Yes, have a look at Spain and thier alignment and involvement with the U.S. lead coallition. I liken them a lot to Australlia as far as intent at the start, but they changed thier minds, so did the voters, and they made the switch pretty dam fast.
There is precedent for Australlia to go in this vein.
We followed you into Afghanistan and Iraq. We would undoubtedly follow you into Iran.
But if you want sources, then I'll find one for you:
From a Conservative Australian Newspaper:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/pms-foreign-faces/2006/02/26/1140888743589.html
He said he would not leave Troops there for the mopping up operation. We are still there. He has also stated that he would not be withdrawing any troops.
He has also recently announced that he will be sending an additional 300 troops to Afghanistan.
In addition the Labor [Opposition] Party constnatly criticises him of being America's Lap-Dog.
About 600 according to:
http://www.dva.gov.au/commem/commac/studies/anzacsk/res1.htm
That is in addition to us being involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thanks for posting refrence to other sources of your position, I appreciate that.
In all candeor, I think Iraq is massive mistake and if you choose to go through some of my posting history, you will find me very critical of Bush. That said its becoming harder and harder to swallow the pill of "U.S. lap dog" when, as you refrenced and stated, democratic governments choose to be there, and remain there.
When there public is seemingly unhappy about it. It dosent add up mate, and while I appreciate a dissenting view Australlia's involvement in Iraq, is Australlias fault, not the U.S.
CountArach
06-16-2007, 07:48
I dont consider liberals weenies.
woo! That's one more who is slightly less anti-Liberal...
Yes, and considering Australlia is a democracy shouldnt the voters be demanding a pull out from Iraq and redeployment to Darfur then? Let me guess, the police are deployed in the streets now to hold back the protesters making that demand right? (sarcasm intended).
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1595909.htm
A new opinion poll out today suggests that almost two thirds of people in this country want Australian troops to leave Iraq within the next couple months.
It's from March last year, but not much has changed. It anything I think mroe people want out. No, we aren't marching in the streets, but we are showing discontent. We are a lazy bunch down here :wink:.
Whats howard in now, his 5th term?
4th. The opinion polls are against him for the next election, but he will probably win again.
Okay if you say so, but is the U.S. the cause of that? Im not trying to be a smart ass, I seriously dont recall any arm twisting or leverage we used to get Australlia into Afghanistan or Iraq.
Fair enough. I can accept that it is Howard's fault, however I do take the view that if America hadn't gone to Iraq, we wouldnt've either.
The way Australlia is portrayed here in the states, Howard wanted to be more aligned with the U.S./Britian and take on a bigger role on a world stage.
That's pretty much the same idea we have. However, we resent a lot of it, because he has done that at the expense of any chance we have of getting a regional alliance in Asia.
Yes, have a look at Spain and thier alignment and involvement with the U.S. lead coallition. I liken them a lot to Australlia as far as intent at the start, but they changed thier minds, so did the voters, and they made the switch pretty dam fast.
There is precedent for Australlia to go in this vein.
Up until this next election, our Federal Opposition has been incompetent. There is discontent, but when the other parety's policies are haphazard {sp?}, there is nothing that can be done.
Thanks for posting refrence to other sources of your position, I appreciate that.
My pleasure, I actually enjoy reading through them.
In all candeor, I think Iraq is massive mistake and if you choose to go through some of my posting history, you will find me very critical of Bush. That said its becoming harder and harder to swallow the pill of "U.S. lap dog" when, as you refrenced and stated, democratic governments choose to be there, and remain there.
When there public is seemingly unhappy about it. It dosent add up mate, and while I appreciate a dissenting view Australlia's involvement in Iraq, is Australlias fault, not the U.S.
Fair enough.
You would be surprised just how much of our Government Foreign Policy is dictated by yours.
Actions speak louder than words.
We followed you into Afghanistan and Iraq. We would undoubtedly follow you into Iran.
But if you want sources, then I'll find one for you:
From a Conservative Australian Newspaper:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/pms-foreign-faces/2006/02/26/1140888743589.html
He said he would not leave Troops there for the mopping up operation. We are still there. He has also stated that he would not be withdrawing any troops.
He has also recently announced that he will be sending an additional 300 troops to Afghanistan.
In addition the Labor [Opposition] Party constnatly criticises him of being America's Lap-Dog.
That is in addition to us being involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.
maybe this is because Howard perceives that following the US is in Australia's strategic national interest?
You (the people of Australia), may disagree, so vote him out.
Major Robert Dump
06-16-2007, 10:18
Hollywood movie stars are doing plenty to stop the savages, what with thier speeches at the Oscars and their PSAs during primetime. But I would think for the cost of running an ad that expensive they could hire African mercenaries, make an army and go in and take care of things. They could hire even more if they paid the mercenaries in chickens, cocaine and socks.
Marshal Murat
06-16-2007, 22:57
I thought southern Sudan did have oil.
Sudan, Oil, and Humanity (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/)
Seems like they do, and no-one is jumping on the band-wagon!
Papewaio
06-17-2007, 05:23
Again does Solomon have any oil?
Flip side of the coin...
Aus probably went in to Iraq when it felt that its billion dollar wheat deal might come unstuck... it might have been a case on our part of realpolitik... not the fault of the US in this instance, purely our greed.
CountArach
06-17-2007, 09:01
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1953374.htm
It seems we may be going in afterall.
Open-ended Iraq deployment affecting Darfur effort: Labor
The Federal Opposition says the Government can only make a small peace-keeping contribution to the Darfur region of Sudan because the Army is over-stretched in Iraq.
The Government initially said it would not send any troops to the war ravaged region, but yesterday Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer said the Government will consider sending a small force.
Labor supports the move, but the party's foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland says the Government's open-ended commitment to Iraq has limited Australia's options.
"It is regrettable however that the Government's essentially had its hands tied because our troops have been over-stretched," he said.
"Our troops have been over-stretched because of the commitments we have both in Afghanistan and Iraq."
"Really the Government has to rationalise how we're allocating our military.
"The Labor Party has advocated the phased withdrawal of our combat troops from Iraq, so that we do have greater capacity to respond to demands that may occur around the world."
I think Yun al-Din's "anti-Americanism" (I don't really think it is, but who cares about a weenie liberal's opinion?) has more to do with Australia having troops in Iraq but not in Darfur than anything like deep-rooted anti-Americanism people are accusing him of.
After all most people considers the Iraq War's legitimacy to be under extreme fire while at the same time the situation at Darfur as a humanitarian crisis. It leads to the question of why Australia is in Iraq (because of the USA's presence) and not Darfur.
It's just like Blair where people are looking at him the wrong way because of Iraq. "Bush's poodle" and all that.
From his post I take it that he views his armed forces as a tool for peace in the world and wants them to be used that way -- an attitude which, while different from the usual view of armed forces (defenders of the national interest), is quite admirable in its own way.
Of course, there can be a plethora of reasons why the Australian government refuses UN's request and I'm not here to shout down Mr. Howard either; after all I know squat about Australian politics.
you know me better than me... thats scarey
to those who say, oh well why is Australia influenced by America we didnt order them too, why dont they sack the government.
please ... I think grossly over-simplifying the issue (as you well know) is mearly embaressing yourself.
You know full well a) more than just foreign policy decides elections ie. economics, and domestic politics, b) erm Im pretty sure everyone was thinking WMDs so most of the lemmings in this nation were thinking iraq was the thing to do, c) some people think the FTA with the USA is worth becoming a target for terroism, and contributing to the massacre of other peoples over the other side of the world, d) elections only come every 4 years e) like the US discovered if you dont have a viable alternative the incumbent gets another term (no matter how many lies and attrocities they are responsible for) f) people see employment and economic prosperity as the most important things - if these come at the cost of other people - out of sight is out of mind - if we could just get the news to stop showing dead iraqis and africans then people in this country would be in bliss.
I didnt realise that when I posted my opinion about this that I was posting the opinion of the entire Australian NATION!!!! Ill be more mindful next time Im representing my people. To those that want to think me anti-american, lets not over-simplify things - Im anti-americans-like-you - not all of them. :yes:
to those who say, oh well why is Australia influenced by America we didnt order them too, why dont they sack the government.
please ... I think grossly over-simplifying the issue (as you well know) is mearly embaressing yourself.
Not as embarrassing as implying, or stating someone elses policies dictate your own but okay if you say so.
You know full well a) more than just foreign policy decides elections ie. economics, and domestic politics, b) erm Im pretty sure everyone was thinking WMDs so most of the lemmings in this nation were thinking iraq was the thing to do, c) some people think the FTA with the USA is worth becoming a target for terroism, and contributing to the massacre of other peoples over the other side of the world, d) elections only come every 4 years e) like the US discovered if you dont have a viable alternative the incumbent gets another term (no matter how many lies and attrocities they are responsible for) f) people see employment and economic prosperity as the most important things - if these come at the cost of other people - out of sight is out of mind - if we could just get the news to stop showing dead iraqis and africans then people in this country would be in bliss.
Right, but here we are now, years later and we know the deal with Iraq, yeat Australlia still chooses to be there. Considering all the factors you listed, why havent the australlians pulled out? Most importantly, why hasnt australlia taken responsibility for its choice?
Its easy to blame someone else isnt it? Well dont feel bad, most of the democracies who chose to go to Iraq blame U.S. foreign policy as the cause, think of all the taxes you will save knowing you dont have to pay for your own foriegn ministry. :dizzy2:
I didnt realise that when I posted my opinion about this that I was posting the opinion of the entire Australian NATION!!!! Ill be more mindful next time Im representing my people.
Personally, I enjoy chatting with Australlians, Brits, Danes, those who chose to support my country. I am fascinated with thier thinking, and thier choices, but it seems that envitably said peoples dont like to take responsibility for thier choices, or thier governments.
From my perspective here in the states, Howard seems to be your problem, he wants australlia to be a bigger fish on the world stage and he is achieving it by aligning himself and your nation with U.S. foriegn policy.
Goal achieved? Well yes I think so at least here in the states Australlia and its people are looked at very favorably. dont know what his domestic standings are but looks like he is on the way to achieving a 5th term as PM.
Seems the majority is satisfied with his policy.
Papewaio
06-18-2007, 14:06
Goal achieved? Well yes I think so at least here in the states Australlia and its people are looked at very favorably. dont know what his domestic standings are but looks like he is on the way to achieving a 5th term as PM.
Seems the majority is satisfied with his policy.
Imagine the opposition was formed of all the worst vice-presidents in US history... then you may have an idea why he has been in power for awhile... its not great leadership, its good on some, bad on others... but the opposition, heck one of those 4 elections the primary opposition ran a ticket of no polices... so how can you vote for someone whose idea is to remain the opposition. :wall: Heck I've voted for him when I've been in the country and I am descended from Welsh coal miners and been a miner myself... I should be a true blue Labor supporter... but until very recently they have been spineless or full of venom and hate...Beasley was a nice guy and a sandgroper so I should have been voting for him but he was the one who ran against Howard with a no policy ticket, Latham has the foulest attitude with a mouth to match and a backstabbing attitude... might as well make the Mouth of Sauron PM... so essentially there has been zero credible opposition to choose from.
Imagine the opposition was formed of all the worst vice-presidents in US history... then you may have an idea why he has been in power for awhile... its not great leadership, its good on some, bad on others... but the opposition, heck one of those 4 elections the primary opposition ran a ticket of no polices... so how can you vote for someone whose idea is to remain the opposition. :wall: Heck I've voted for him when I've been in the country and I am descended from Welsh coal miners and been a miner myself... I should be a true blue Labor supporter... but until very recently they have been spineless or full of venom and hate...Beasley was a nice guy and a sandgroper so I should have been voting for him but he was the one who ran against Howard with a no policy ticket, Latham has the foulest attitude with a mouth to match and a backstabbing attitude... might as well make the Mouth of Sauron PM... so essentially there has been zero credible opposition to choose from.
okay, but again thats an internal Australlian issue. There is poor choices for politicians everywhere, but the thrust of the thread was why Iraq and not Darfur.
So there is another election coming up correct? Clearly the vast majority of the world (US voters included) are fed up with Iraq and the offensive nature on the war on terror.
Blair paid for it, berlusconi in italy paid for, bush paid for it (in loosing his majority), why no Howard and his coallition?
History is being made in the present, and presently Australlia has an opportunity to realign and change its course if thats what the people want. Even if the opposition is shody, sometimes you have to decide which devil you want, and which circumstance is better then the other.
Right now Im sure Mr Howard enjoys the prestige of being a player on a larger stage, is that what the Australlian people want? Political choices are never easy there is something to like and dislike about each, but with Howard its pretty clear that a 5th term garnishes you more of the same.
Papewaio
06-18-2007, 14:43
Great economy (mainly due to resource boom)
Really low unemployment.
Low interest rates.
Lowering of taxes.
vs
Iraq
Iraq is bad but it isn't the only issue on the agenda... the economy here is going like clockwork so it makes it hard to move the incumbent, that and East Timor was seen as a very good thing as well as Solomons, the stand by for Fiji's seasonal coups and Afghanistan, Iraq is a greyish one and not really Howard's fault if the intelligence supplied by the bigger and better equipped was faulty... interesting though that the SAS where one of the few groups to secure a major airfield/potential WMD site vs oil sites... but that is an issue for the tin hat brigade.
In short foreign policy does not always trump local policy... now if thousands of aussies were dying in Iraq it certainly would...
Great economy (mainly due to resource boom)
Really low unemployment.
Low interest rates.
Lowering of taxes.
vs
Iraq
Iraq is bad but it isn't the only issue on the agenda... the economy here is going like clockwork so it makes it hard to move the incumbent, that and East Timor was seen as a very good thing as well as Solomons, the stand by for Fiji's seasonal coups and Afghanistan, Iraq is a greyish one and not really Howard's fault if the intelligence supplied by the bigger and better equipped was faulty... interesting though that the SAS where one of the few groups to secure a major airfield/potential WMD site vs oil sites... but that is an issue for the tin hat brigade.
In short foreign policy does not always trump local policy... now if thousands of aussies were dying in Iraq it certainly would...
Fair enough, so what procludes Australlia from sending forces to Dhafur? The impression I got from this thread by others is that Iraq was hamstringing most policy. I do take that sentiment with some grains of salt, but if the economy is going well, and most domestic issues are okay, and Australlia isnt loosing thousands in Iraq, whats stopping you guys?
I wont profess to know much about Australlian politics, or public opinion, I do know that here in the states Australlia is portrayed as solid democracy, with good intentions. thats from a very left leaning media to boot, it seems to me short of Iraq, Howard has made Australlia a world player.
I dont recall in my years of watching world politics Australlia ever being amongst one of the major goto democracies for world crisis. Is that welcomed there?
Caerfanan
06-18-2007, 15:15
I wonder if people's reluctance to send troops into conflicts as UN peacekeepers might not have something to do with the rules of engagement the troops are under. Other than catching bullets over there, and writing strongly worded protests, what exactly can UN peacekeepers do?
You have a point here, mate. I could have a few comments about this, about another place than Darfour where so many soldiers can only watch what goes on... but that would be off topic...
Fair enough, so what procludes Australlia from sending forces to Dhafur? The impression I got from this thread by others is that Iraq was hamstringing most policy. I do take that sentiment with some grains of salt, but if the economy is going well, and most domestic issues are okay, and Australlia isnt loosing thousands in Iraq, whats stopping you guys?
I wont profess to know much about Australlian politics, or public opinion, I do know that here in the states Australlia is portrayed as solid democracy, with good intentions. thats from a very left leaning media to boot, it seems to me short of Iraq, Howard has made Australlia a world player.
I dont recall in my years of watching world politics Australlia ever being amongst one of the major goto democracies for world crisis. Is that welcomed there?
nothing... other than Howard and pulling troops out of iraq and sending them a short distance to africa from the middle east
(which he doesnt want to do because if he admits iraq was a mistake or not see it through till the iraqis are saved [yeh right] then it undermines everything else and hands victory to the opposition)
In times gone past Australians wouldve seen it as a great honor to be asked by the UN to assist in a disaster like the Sudan. To say we wont because we too over committed in a non UN sanctioned annexation (and creating terrorists 101) is a matter of national shame for me anyway.
Howard has rested his entire political career on the conflict in the middle east - he went out on a limb - and now he wont/cant pull back -because that would mean admitting he was mistaken - 10 years in power has gone to his head
and I also wonder if we are that stretched - or starving africans just doesnt make the sort of press that chasing Osama does
Personally, I enjoy chatting with Australlians, Brits, Danes, those who chose to support my country. I am fascinated with thier thinking, and thier choices, but it seems that envitably said peoples dont like to take responsibility for thier choices, or thier governments.
erm I dont know about you, but I often disagree with the policies /actions of my government - which is what my OP was about - I dont think anywhere in there I disclaimed responsibility or said it was not the actions of the Australian government
I do however blame the US for the dimishing of the UN to being irrelevent, and I do regret our nations close relationship with the US - now that the US has become an imperialistic warmongering nation - in fact like much of the world I fear what fate is beholden to us all should the US continue on its current path, and I wish the little nation of Australia was not so visiably by your side because of the megalomaniac ambitions of our priminister.
Papewaio
06-19-2007, 02:34
Fair enough, so what procludes Australlia from sending forces to Dhafur? The impression I got from this thread by others is that Iraq was hamstringing most policy. I do take that sentiment with some grains of salt, but if the economy is going well, and most domestic issues are okay, and Australlia isnt loosing thousands in Iraq, whats stopping you guys?
Probably because:
There are 15 Americans per Australian
USA (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html) GDP of $43,500, military expenditure of GDP 4.06%
Aus (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/as.html) GDP per capita of $33,300, military expenditure of GDP 2.4%
So 15 * 43/33 * 4.06/2.4 = 33... so a military force in the region of 33 times larger then Australia can be expected (more as Australia has only recently ramped up military investment, and in Aus Uni and Technical colleges are free so there is less of an incentive to join the military to get out of poverty... in fact it is the other way round, if you want to get out of poverty you do commerce/law and become a civvie).
I wont profess to know much about Australlian politics, or public opinion, I do know that here in the states Australlia is portrayed as solid democracy, with good intentions. thats from a very left leaning media to boot, it seems to me short of Iraq, Howard has made Australlia a world player.
I dont recall in my years of watching world politics Australlia ever being amongst one of the major goto democracies for world crisis. Is that welcomed there?
Considering we are a sports mad nation we already were doing pretty well in the world arena. I don't think our profile has been raised around the world, it's just been noticed in the US because our policies have aligned.
I have seen throwaway statements like Pakistan is an ally of UK and Aus because of its alliance with the US on the war of terror. Gees what have all these years of playing cricket in world cups been about and having the teams play in each others nations, shared Commonwealth history... the alliance is the other way around... Because of the history of Pakistan, UK and Aus, the US has a conduit to them in forming an alliance in the war on terror.
Afghanistan... well Australia again has a history with that country, during the gold rush years in the 1840'sAfghanis and their camels supplied the mines, to the point nowadays one of the most famous trains in Australia is the Ghan (http://www.trainways.com.au/our-trains/the-ghan/the-journey.php) and we have a feral camel (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1344396.htm)population so large that we export them to the Middle East and Indonesia... also one of the ways Afghanis recognised Aussies intially when they deployed there was from the humatarian aid packages that had been sent for a long time, things like Rice made in Australia (yes as well as exporting camels to the Saudi's we export rice to Asia and regularly beat the Brits at their national sports of Rugby, Cricket and whining, we just can't beat them at their number one sport of football)
East Timor, Solomons, Fiji, Tsunami (billion dollars+ to Indonesia), one of the highest per capita rates of acceptance of refugees... plenty of things that for its size they have done well... however in the US its down to Hollywood actors and which nations we co-invade... neither of which rate as highly in my book as humanitarian aid and sports.
nothing... other than Howard and pulling troops out of iraq and sending them a short distance to africa from the middle east
(which he doesnt want to do because if he admits iraq was a mistake or not see it through till the iraqis are saved [yeh right] then it undermines everything else and hands victory to the opposition)
In times gone past Australians wouldve seen it as a great honor to be asked by the UN to assist in a disaster like the Sudan. To say we wont because we too over committed in a non UN sanctioned annexation (and creating terrorists 101) is a matter of national shame for me anyway.
Howard has rested his entire political career on the conflict in the middle east - he went out on a limb - and now he wont/cant pull back -because that would mean admitting he was mistaken - 10 years in power has gone to his head
Yes this has a familiar ring. Spain, britian, italy, U.S. lots of politicians put there neck for the middle east policy of the U.S. and lots of them paid a political price and pulled out.
Australlia is a noted exception, and if Howard is the person who has steered you down this course (I assume he had the legislature back his policy?) then carpe diem, an election is coming up. Activism and volunteerism is a great way to further your personal idea's of how politics should be governed, I know I do it in the U.S.
erm I dont know about you, but I often disagree with the policies /actions of my government - which is what my OP was about - I dont think anywhere in there I disclaimed responsibility or said it was not the actions of the Australian government
No you didnt, but you did throw out
This country makes me sick to my stomach, pfft what do I expect from a nation aspiring to be the whelping lap dog of the USA.
in your initial post you took the easy route (it seemed to me). Sure everyone wants to be the lap dog of the USA, none of these elected democracies have thier own adgenda and desires that happen to run consistant with U.S. policy. But, as you continued on, Howard seems to, again its refreshing to see others take responsibilty for thier governments choices and actions on behalf of thier peoples.
I do however blame the US for the dimishing of the UN to being irrelevent,
The UN is irrelevant, that isnt the US fault at all.
now that the US has become an imperialistic warmongering nation
Really, labeling entire nations with inaccurate claims detracts from the conversation, and your merit. It would be like me saying the australlians are nothing but lap dogs. :no:
- in fact like much of the world I fear what fate is beholden to us all should the US continue on its current path, and I wish the little nation of Australia was not so visiably by your side because of the megalomaniac ambitions of our priminister.
thankfully you can change your meglomaniac, as far as the U.S. and the rest of the world and what happens to you, I suspect that if there was a real will to stop alignment, and stop U.S. policies the rest of the world whose fate hung in the balance could stop it.
Unless you think the U.S. is more powerful then the rest of the world?
Really, labeling entire nations with inaccurate claims detracts from the conversation, and your merit. It would be like me saying the australlians are nothing but lap dogs. :no:
and based on our current stance - you would be correct
thankfully you can change your meglomaniac, as far as the U.S. and the rest of the world and what happens to you, I suspect that if there was a real will to stop alignment, and stop U.S. policies the rest of the world whose fate hung in the balance could stop it.
Unless you think the U.S. is more powerful then the rest of the world?
isnt it?
as far as elections we like you are governed by the will of the masses, which certainly in Australias case are stupid people who believe everything the government wants them to as long as nothing interupts their 'dancing with the stars' and fake concern over the starving millions. Our nation will continue to do stupid things because most of its people are stupid.
to paraphrase W. Churchill
the greatest argument against democracy is the meet the average voter
and based on our current stance - you would be correct
Please elaborate.
isnt it?
No
as far as elections we like you are governed by the will of the masses, which certainly in Australias case are stupid people who believe everything the government wants them to as long as nothing interupts their 'dancing with the stars' and fake concern over the starving millions. Our nation will continue to do stupid things because most of its people are stupid.
Your more like us then I suspected.
Papewaio
06-20-2007, 03:49
to paraphrase W. Churchill
the greatest argument against democracy is the meet the average voter
And a group of dumb agents will often outperform a single expert agent...
Please elaborate.
I dont have any evidence or links dude - its one mans opinion of Australias current foriegn policy
which atm I think is copy the American one
as you say we have been 'boxing outside our class' for a while now
the problem with being the 3rd visible ally behind the UK is that when it comes to nations we are not the 3rd most powerful or wealthy.
Canadians make sure they have the maple leaf on their bags so they are not mistaken for US citz (some US citz put the leaf on their bags too) - maybe Aussies will have to start putting the kiwi flag on their bags (OMG!! could that be the end of life as we know it!!)
Papewaio
06-20-2007, 04:45
I for one welcome our Kiwi overlords.
Welcome to the West Island.
CountArach
06-20-2007, 05:14
Well we would instantly own the parliament through population...
I for one welcome our Kiwi overlords.
Welcome to the West Island.
:laugh4: :laugh4:
hey theyve got female Priminister
does that mean they are more progressive than us.?
it would be easy to think that till you travelled east through the worm hole and found yourself in 1950s country Australia (NZ circa 2007)
Pape you really should pop over there and introduce them to some of the newer techs like....... 'fire'
:laugh4: :laugh4:
Well we would instantly own the parliament through population...
not if you count sheep as part of the voting population as they do, and sometimes as marrital partners... :oops:
CountArach
06-20-2007, 05:26
Are you saying that Sheep should not be a part of the voting population? That's being sheepist!
Papewaio
06-20-2007, 09:32
Far more progressive IDMHO... treaty of Waitangi... were Aus took until '67 to get the locals off the wildlife census, NZ was decades ahead on local rights... womens right to vote, NZ first... parole... etc
http://www.blacksheep-themovie.com/
El Diablo
06-21-2007, 03:44
One thing about being a Kiwi and reading this thread. We are waiting for you to send troop to Darfur, and Iraq, and Afganistan and even to Iran and then watch out.
A Blitzkrieg of Panzer-romneys and suicidal-attack-sheep (SAS) and in one foul swoop we will have it all *manical laughter*- (you can keep Russell Crowe though).
Armoured sheep backed up with anti-aircraft dairy herds should sway the battle I say. (dont make us unleash the legions of Urik Hai left over from filming the LOTR!).
Seriously,
We are in the similar situation to Canada in that we are the lesser recognised nation but I personally am proud of what the Aussie digger does on peace keeping duties. Howard is a pratt (so is Alan Clarke our PM) and no one like their govenment really.
But there will always be hot spots around the world and as the Aussies do not have unlimited troops they need to do what is best for the Aussie people - be it protecting the country or their standard of living.
Hate the governement not the troops.
Hate = un-elected??? Perhaps. We have been trying to get rid of Alan and her minions for years. :wall:
One thing about being a Kiwi and reading this thread. We are waiting for you to send troop to Darfur, and Iraq, and Afganistan and even to Iran and then watch out.
A Blitzkrieg of Panzer-romneys and suicidal-attack-sheep (SAS) and in one foul swoop we will have it all *manical laughter*- (you can keep Russell Crowe though).
Armoured sheep backed up with anti-aircraft dairy herds should sway the battle I say. (dont make us unleash the legions of Urik Hai left over from filming the LOTR!).
Seriously,
We are in the similar situation to Canada in that we are the lesser recognised nation but I personally am proud of what the Aussie digger does on peace keeping duties. Howard is a pratt (so is Alan Clarke our PM) and no one like their govenment really.
But there will always be hot spots around the world and as the Aussies do not have unlimited troops they need to do what is best for the Aussie people - be it protecting the country or their standard of living.
Hate the governement not the troops.
Hate = un-elected??? Perhaps. We have been trying to get rid of Alan and her minions for years. :wall:
:laugh4:
Yeh we just spent 10 million rupeas for some spanish aircraft carriers to park in the Tasman to strafe your armored sheep as they land on bondi with our flying kangaroos - ever been hit by a kangaroo turd whipped up by the wind - those Uruks will be shielding their faces and Russel rides them down (Aussie VICTOR!!! - Oi oi oi)
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=88362
and they came with free Flamenco lessons for the RAN personel
no ones pointing the finger at the diggers mate (their doing a stirling job) only the pollys (who are doing sfa)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.